Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH/s.IN Sum. S No.3620/10 Oral Order 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.346 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.3620 OF 2010
(H.C.SUMMARY SUIT NO.1159 OF 2010)
Bank of India ...Plaintiff
V/s
Mona R.Gowda ...Defendants
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri M.M.Umar
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 26/06/2018
Adv. Ms.Nupur Awasthi for plaintiff.
Adv. Mr.Ramesh Jain for defendant.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant for
condoning the delay in filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment.
2. Read the application. Heard to the learned advocate for the
defendant, so also, for the plaintiff at some length.
3. The learned advocate for the defendants has submitted that
the Writ of Summons was served upon the defendants in the year 2010
and after lapse of 6 years the summons for Judgment was served upon
the advocate of defendant. It is submitted that the defendant filed the
Vakalatnama of her advocate after service of summons. She used to
travel abroad as well as out of Station for business tour very often.
-- 1 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.3620/10 Oral Order 2
Therefore, it is submitted that the defendant was not in a position to
instruct her advocate to file the reply within stipulated period. So also,
she tried to settle the dispute with the plaintiff Bank as full and final
settlement and the concerned Bank officer also told her that she should
not worry and the matter will be settled amicably and it was informed
that the plaintiff will withdraw the suit. It is submitted that when she
contacted with her advocate, he informed that the matter will be settled
shortly out of the Court. It is submitted that on inquiry she came to
know that matter is not withdrawn by the plaintiff Bank and that the
learned advocate for the plaintiff raised the objection for taking her
reply on record and the matter proceeded exparte against her. It is
submitted that if the delay caused in filing the affidavit of defendant in
reply to the Summons for Judgment is not condoned, serious prejudice
would cause to the defendant which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. Lastly, the learned advocate for defendant has requested to
condone the delay.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for plaintiff has
submitted that there is no proper explanation from the side of
defendant for not filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment.
Therefore, it is requested to reject the application.
5. I have duly considered the submissions of both the sides so
also I have gone carefully through the case papers. It appears from the
submission of both the sides that the talk was going on between the
-- 2 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.3620/10 Oral Order 3
parties for amicable settlement out of the Court but it was not
materialised. It appears that the defendant filed the Vakalatnama of her
advocate after service of suit summons upon her, within time and it
appears that the Summons for Judgment was served upon the advocate
of the defendant after a long gap of 6 years. Now, it is seen that the
reason shown by the defendant for not filing the reply to the Summons
for Judgment within time appears cogent and probable. It appears that
there is no inaction on the part of the defendant nor the delay is
malafide or due to negligence on the part of defendant. Since the
defendant has shown the sufficient cause for not filing the reply on
record within time to the Summons for Judgment, the interest of justice
requires to condone the delay, after awarding reasonable cost to the
plaintiff to meet the ends of justice. Hence, following order:
ORDER
1. Chamber summons no.346/18 is allowed.
2. The delay caused for filing the reply to the Summons for
Judgment is hereby condoned, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.2,500/ payable to the plaintiff by the defendant on or before next
date.
3. Chamber Summons no.346/18 is disposed of accordingly.
(M.M.UMAR)
Judge,
26/06/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 26/06/18.
Date of Transcription : 26/06/18.
Date of signature : 01/06/18
-- 3 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.3620/10 Oral Order 4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
07.07.18 Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri.M.M.Umar(CR
No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
26.06.18
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 01.07.18
Judgement/order uploaded on 02.07.18
-- 4 of 4 --